User talk:Jmertel23/Archive 2018 11

re: Deletion of Trance Fury page
Hi Jmertel23,

I apologize I did not see your talk page on this deletion. Can this get restored so it can be edited? It unfortunately was a bad time to delete it as I'm very active in the studio working with a grammy nominated producer. I realize if every little indie artist had a page it would be a mess but I've had success to warrant the page being active. It is also being referred to by my Pandora radio artist page. I'd hate to have to recreate the whole thing and would prefer to work from a backup.

Thank You,

Fury88 (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. I do not have the ability to restore deleted pages, but you can place a request here. However, please be sure to first read the following policies that appear to apply in this situation:
 * criteria for notability of musicians
 * autobiographies
 * self-promotion and publicity
 * advertising
 * Thanks so much, and feel free to let me know if you have any additional questions. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I completely understand. I've placed the request. I believe the article needs a little TLC and to cite new additional sources. The artist is also about to release a crowdfunding campaign that specifically mentions Wikipedia. Also, don't forget that many artists on music streaming services like Pandora Radio get their bio information from these pages. I appreciate your time! Fury88 (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Stephan Papadakis
Hi Jmertel23 - Thank you for taking the time to review my submission and for adding a tag. There are a number of citations in the piece to back up the information I included and I'm not sure what edits to make. I'm still new here. Can you recommend a further improvement I can make? Jenplayswithcars (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Which Part is Unreliable?
Awangba Mangang (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mangang
 * Khuman(Salai)
 * Search engine result pages are not considered to be reliable sources. Specific sources should be cited instead. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Garrapata
Hi Jmertel23, I'm responding to the message you left on my Talk page on 14:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC) - today.

I think I understand your reservations about unsourced material in Wikipedia. When I removed the 'citation needed' comments from the article on Vince Lee (explorer), which I wrote, I gave a short reason for such removals, as you noted. Where a reference could be found, I inserted it. Unavailable citations have to do with his military service almost 60 years ago. About the only way we could obtain the necessary biographical material, if it even exists after all this time, is to formally request it from the DoD. That is asking too much.

First of all, the Infobox photo shows Mr Lee in US Marine military field uniform on a mountain training exercise. Secondly, links in the article's section "US Marine Corps service" go directly to a Marine Corps history describing some of Lee's service. It was attested to by a Marine Corps Major-General. Thirdly, anybody who falsely asserts membership in the US military is subject to penalties under the Stolen Valor Act or as a Military imposter. Neither Mr Lee nor I is so stupid as to flirt with that. In fact, in wishing to assuage your reservations on his military service, Mr Lee has offered to provide a copy of his discharge papers.

So, sir, you can be assured that all assertions about Mr Lee's military service are true.

Next, I endeavored to respond to your reservations about a possible COI. I posted my reply in the article's talk page.

Again, I appreciate your editorial efforts in assuring only verifiable material ends up in a Wikipedia article.

Thank you for your efforts

Garrapata

Speedy deletion nomination of SCHAFT (Robot)


A tag has been placed on SCHAFT (Robot) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Cabayi (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Emily Greenwood
tbh, Jmertel23, I find your addition of BLP sources to Emily Greenwood objectionable and unnecessary. Whilst I agree that it is desirable per WP:V that we have citations for all information, lack of citations is only really a problem where there is ' any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged' - and I find none in Emily Greenwood.

BLP sources seems to be your go-to behaviour. Here's Uladzimir Izotau, wth a single cited sentence plus an infobox. Again, you've tagged it.

I ask you to give a little more thought before tagging articles. In some cases it may be helpful. But a scattergun approach is not IMO a constructive way to assist in building wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. I will absolutely take it into consideration as I review BLP articles. Thank you, Jmertel23 (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Komoju
Dear Jmertel23,

Thanks for your feedback.

I am an employee of the organization, but I haven't been paid for my Wikipedia contributions, which is something I've done voluntarily, just like with other projects involving LinkedIn and Glassdoor.

Shall I still add the "paid" tag? Please let me know.

Thanks for helping me become a better contributor.

Cheers,

Mario Degica (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2018 (GMT+9)


 * , Thanks for following up! I suppose the question of the "paid" tag would depend on whether you are doing the updates as part of your regular job (i.e. are you doing it while at work?).  If so, you should use the paid editor disclosure.  If not (i.e. if you're making the updates while at home on your day off), you should add the conflict of interest disclosure.  Please see WP:COI for details.  Thanks! Jmertel23 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Gurpreet Singh (professor)
Hello Jmertel23,

Thanks for your feedback.

I am an employee of the organization, but I haven't been paid for my Wikipedia contributions, which is something I do when I have down time at work. What procedure should I follow for the COI and linkrot tags to be removed?

Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. I am just getting started with Wikipedia, therefore there are some hurdles that I need to overcome.

Cheers 129.130.49.254 (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)